UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5002
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SHARMA SHAMIL WAKEFIELD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:11-cr-00476-HMH-1)
Submitted: March 29, 2012 Decided: April 2, 2012
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Carrie Fisher Sherard, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sharma Shamil Wakefield pled guilty to one count of
being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). He was sentenced to 180 months
in prison. In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), Wakefield’s attorney has filed a brief certifying
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning
whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in
accepting Wakefield’s guilty plea. Although informed of his
right to do so, Wakefield has not filed a pro se supplemental
brief. The Government has declined to file a responsive brief.
Prior to accepting a guilty plea, the district court
must inform the defendant of the charges to which the plea is
offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum possible
penalty, and the various rights relinquished with the plea.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b). The court must also determine that the
plea is voluntary and that there is a factual basis for the
plea. United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir.
1991). A review of the record reveals that the district court
complied with Rule 11’s requirements, ensuring that Wakefield’s
guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and supported by a
sufficient factual basis. Accordingly, we discern no error in
the district court’s acceptance of Wakefield’s guilty plea.
2
In accordance with Anders, we have examined the record
for potentially meritorious issues and have found none. We
affirm the judgment of the district court. This court requires
that counsel inform Wakefield, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Wakefield requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Wakefield. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3